Tor

Tor is an encrypted anonymising network that makes it harder to intercept internet communications, or see where communications are coming from or going to.

In order to use the WikiLeaks public submission system as detailed above you can download the Tor Browser Bundle, which is a Firefox-like browser available for Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and pre-configured to connect using the anonymising system Tor.

Tails

If you are at high risk and you have the capacity to do so, you can also access the submission system through a secure operating system called Tails. Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tails will require you to have either a USB stick or a DVD at least 4GB big and a laptop or desktop computer.

Tips

Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions. Please review these basic guidelines.

1. Contact us if you have specific problems

If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.

2. What computer to use

If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer.

3. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

After

1. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

3. Remove traces of your submission

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

4. If you face legal action

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

Submit documents to WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives.

The following is the address of our secure site where you can anonymously upload your documents to WikiLeaks editors. You can only access this submissions system through Tor. (See our Tor tab for more information.) We also advise you to read our tips for sources before submitting.

wlupld3ptjvsgwqw.onion

Copy this address into your Tor browser. Advanced users, if they wish, can also add a further layer of encryption to their submission using our public PGP key.

If you cannot use Tor, or your submission is very large, or you have specific requirements, WikiLeaks provides several alternative methods. Contact us to discuss how to proceed.

LEGAL EXPERTS AT OPCW
This is CWC-123-03.
1. (U) Summary. Two USG legal experts (Bernard Seward from
State/L/ACV - JAGLCS/CLAMO and Randy Pratt from
Commerce/OGC/IS) participated in the first meeting of the CWC
"Network of Legal Experts" November 4-7, supported by the
Commerce representative to the U.S. CWC Delegation (Brandon
Williams). The meeting was useful in providing information
about the status of implementing legislation in the 37 States
Parties participating and in identifying how the USG may
assist interested governments in taking steps toward full
implementation of the Convention. End Summary.
2. (SBU) Attendance: 37 countries sent representatives to
the initial meeting of the CWC Legal Experts Network (LEN)-
Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin,
Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador,
Ethiopia, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Indonesia, Kuwait,
Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Palau, Peru, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Serbia and
Montenegro, Spain, Sri Lanka, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Uganda, UK, USA, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam. Japan and Iran
attended intermittently but did not actively participate. Key
legal and other assistance donor countries such as France and
Australia were missing, and others such as Canada, UK, and
Germany attended only the presentations and otherwise
participated only minimally. Members of their National
Authority or their general legislative drafting departments
represented most recipient countries.
3. (SBU) Comment: According to Technical Secretariat (TS)
Legal Officer Lisa Tabassi, more countries were interested in
participating. However, the TS originally planned for
participation of only 36 countries, so certain countries
which had expressed interest, but which had recently received
sponsorship to other fora were not funded and so did not
participate. End Comment.
4. (U) The first two days of CWC LEN meeting were dedicated
to TS and national presentations. Tabassi began by framing
the discussions for participants by referencing the Action
Plan for Article VII and how the Convention and its
comprehensive implementation complement global
counter-terrorism efforts. Tabassi also discussed various
legal issues including the need to provide legal authority
over "free zones" and "free ports" in CWC implementing
legislation and the need to account for the obligation to
provide legal assistance to other States Party to prosecute
violations of laws prohibiting CW activities. TS Policy
Officer Trapp then provided a detailed brief on the Action
Plan for implementation recently adopted by the OPCW CSP.
5. (SBU) Status of implementing legislation: The attendees
then briefed their status as follows:
-- (SBU) Comprehensive legislation enacted - 11 (Austria,
Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Germany, Peru, St.
Vincent and Grenadines, Spain, UK, and USA). Of these,
Austria, Canada, and Spain indicated updates to legislation
are in process to fill remaining gaps.
-- (SBU) Legislation drafted but awaiting Cabinet/Legislative
approval - 3 (Bangladesh, Morocco, Trinidad and Tobago)
-- (SBU) In process of drafting - 14 (Algeria, Argentina,
Benin, Burundi, Georgia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico,
Nigeria, Palau, Serbia and Montenegro, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan,
Viet Nam)
-- (SBU) Nothing - 9 (Cameroon, El Salvador, Gabon, Kuwait,
Malawi, Nicaragua, Moldova, Togo, Uganda).
6. (SBU) During presentation of national statements, Togo
and Nigeria publicly specifically requested U.S. help while a
number of other countries also privately approached the Del
for assistance (see para X.). The representatives from
Nigeria, Uganda, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh seemed inclined to
use the TS model law provided in its "National Legislation
Implementation Kit." Moldova, Republic of Serbia and
Montenegro, Trinidad and Tobago, and Togo were interested in
how to implement their laws once they are passed, and/or
being able to describe the resources and regulatory measures
that will be required for implementation during the current
consideration of legislation.
7. (SBU) Most of the countries that had not enacted
comprehensive legislation reported that they currently were
relying on scattered existing legislation for possible
enforcement actions, primarily penal code provisions on
poisons and dangerous substances, environmental regulations,
and customs laws. They recognized, however, that overall
legislation to fill in the gaps, modernize their laws and
provide for declarations and inspections is necessary.
8. (U) On Nov. 6, to facilitate language-based group
discussion, attendees were divided into UN-based language
groups. The U.S. joined the so-called "English speaking"
group (which consisted of all countries that did not speak
Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese or French - around 20
countries). No agenda or moderator was provided by the TS so
each group decided for itself what it would do. The
English-speaking group decided to use the time to engage in
bilateral consultations (see para X).
9. (SBU) Del conducted bilateral discussions with Vietnam,
Indonesia, Trinidad and Tobago, Serbia and Montenegro, Togo,
Uganda, and Nigeria each of whom requested specific U.S.
implementation support to facilitate development of a
national authority and facilitate enactment of legislation.
Most requests were for assistance in educating government
ministries, industry and legislators as to the requirements
of the CWC, rather than drafting or other legal assistance.
Discussions surfaced a general theme of implementation
support needs for implementation information and guidance,
industry outreach seminar assistance and government personnel
training. Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and Cameroon also expressed
interest in assistance, but indicated that timing of such
assistance should follow enactment of legislation. Del
provided each representative with USG contacts for written
requests (State/National Authority - Sidler and CWDel member
- Williams) to initiate dialogue on implementation support
type, timing and intensity.
10. (U) At a sparsely-attended Nov. 7 meeting of the
"English-speaking" group, TS Policy Officer Trapp attempted
to solicit ideas as to what legal assistance could be
provided in the future by the CWC Legal Experts Network (LEN)
and through what mechanisms. In the absence of any reaction,
USDEL led off with its view:
-- (U) Having many of the actual legislative drafters present
was very useful in providing an accurate assessment of the
current state of affairs regarding implementing legislation
in the countries represented.
-- (U) The informal, experts nature of the meeting greatly
assisted the free flow of information and should be
continued. The establishment of points of contact for
legislation greatly improves communication and provides a
conduit for follow-on bilateral and TS action.
-- (U) USG CWC legal experts Seward and Pratt were available
to review draft legislation and regulations and discuss legal
issues, either directly or as part of submissions to the TS
Office of the Legal Adviser.
-- (U) The USG was prepared to entertain requests for other
forms of implementation assistance such as brochures
explaining the CWC to industry or conducting information
seminars. While USG CWC legal experts could not receive
official requests for resource, information or other
non-legal forms of assistance, they could provide information
on how to formally request assistance and would alert the USG
that specific countries were inquiring about assistance.
(Information on USG contacts for such requests -- CWDEL
member Williams and State/MA Sidler -- was subsequently
distributed.)
-- (U) The TS should set up a password-protected area for the
confidential exchange of information among experts. This
SIPDIS
forum should be the main focal point for coordination of the
LEN, augmented by annual meetings. The TS should also
solicit information for and post an informal quarterly update
of the progress countries were making in
drafting/passing/implementing their legislation and
regulations. This site should include copies of national
statements presented during the LEN meeting.
11. (U) There were few other responses. Sri Lanka liked the
idea of a quarterly report. Trinidad and Tobago asked for TS
assistance for the Caribbean regional group and stressed the
need for more interaction among the LEN participants,
specifically requesting establishment of a Commonwealth-based
review and coordination group for legislation.
12. (U) The TS (Trapp) indicated it would be setting up the
website for coordination, will consider annual meetings of
the LEN to monitor and encourage progress, and will solicit
other States Parties participation with a focus on linking
donors to recipients.
13. (U) Javits sends.
SOBEL

Raw content

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002939
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN)
NSC FOR CHUPA
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM, PREL, CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): 1ST MEETING OF
LEGAL EXPERTS AT OPCW
This is CWC-123-03.
1. (U) Summary. Two USG legal experts (Bernard Seward from
State/L/ACV - JAGLCS/CLAMO and Randy Pratt from
Commerce/OGC/IS) participated in the first meeting of the CWC
"Network of Legal Experts" November 4-7, supported by the
Commerce representative to the U.S. CWC Delegation (Brandon
Williams). The meeting was useful in providing information
about the status of implementing legislation in the 37 States
Parties participating and in identifying how the USG may
assist interested governments in taking steps toward full
implementation of the Convention. End Summary.
2. (SBU) Attendance: 37 countries sent representatives to
the initial meeting of the CWC Legal Experts Network (LEN)-
Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin,
Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador,
Ethiopia, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Indonesia, Kuwait,
Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Palau, Peru, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Serbia and
Montenegro, Spain, Sri Lanka, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Uganda, UK, USA, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam. Japan and Iran
attended intermittently but did not actively participate. Key
legal and other assistance donor countries such as France and
Australia were missing, and others such as Canada, UK, and
Germany attended only the presentations and otherwise
participated only minimally. Members of their National
Authority or their general legislative drafting departments
represented most recipient countries.
3. (SBU) Comment: According to Technical Secretariat (TS)
Legal Officer Lisa Tabassi, more countries were interested in
participating. However, the TS originally planned for
participation of only 36 countries, so certain countries
which had expressed interest, but which had recently received
sponsorship to other fora were not funded and so did not
participate. End Comment.
4. (U) The first two days of CWC LEN meeting were dedicated
to TS and national presentations. Tabassi began by framing
the discussions for participants by referencing the Action
Plan for Article VII and how the Convention and its
comprehensive implementation complement global
counter-terrorism efforts. Tabassi also discussed various
legal issues including the need to provide legal authority
over "free zones" and "free ports" in CWC implementing
legislation and the need to account for the obligation to
provide legal assistance to other States Party to prosecute
violations of laws prohibiting CW activities. TS Policy
Officer Trapp then provided a detailed brief on the Action
Plan for implementation recently adopted by the OPCW CSP.
5. (SBU) Status of implementing legislation: The attendees
then briefed their status as follows:
-- (SBU) Comprehensive legislation enacted - 11 (Austria,
Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Germany, Peru, St.
Vincent and Grenadines, Spain, UK, and USA). Of these,
Austria, Canada, and Spain indicated updates to legislation
are in process to fill remaining gaps.
-- (SBU) Legislation drafted but awaiting Cabinet/Legislative
approval - 3 (Bangladesh, Morocco, Trinidad and Tobago)
-- (SBU) In process of drafting - 14 (Algeria, Argentina,
Benin, Burundi, Georgia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico,
Nigeria, Palau, Serbia and Montenegro, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan,
Viet Nam)
-- (SBU) Nothing - 9 (Cameroon, El Salvador, Gabon, Kuwait,
Malawi, Nicaragua, Moldova, Togo, Uganda).
6. (SBU) During presentation of national statements, Togo
and Nigeria publicly specifically requested U.S. help while a
number of other countries also privately approached the Del
for assistance (see para X.). The representatives from
Nigeria, Uganda, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh seemed inclined to
use the TS model law provided in its "National Legislation
Implementation Kit." Moldova, Republic of Serbia and
Montenegro, Trinidad and Tobago, and Togo were interested in
how to implement their laws once they are passed, and/or
being able to describe the resources and regulatory measures
that will be required for implementation during the current
consideration of legislation.
7. (SBU) Most of the countries that had not enacted
comprehensive legislation reported that they currently were
relying on scattered existing legislation for possible
enforcement actions, primarily penal code provisions on
poisons and dangerous substances, environmental regulations,
and customs laws. They recognized, however, that overall
legislation to fill in the gaps, modernize their laws and
provide for declarations and inspections is necessary.
8. (U) On Nov. 6, to facilitate language-based group
discussion, attendees were divided into UN-based language
groups. The U.S. joined the so-called "English speaking"
group (which consisted of all countries that did not speak
Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese or French - around 20
countries). No agenda or moderator was provided by the TS so
each group decided for itself what it would do. The
English-speaking group decided to use the time to engage in
bilateral consultations (see para X).
9. (SBU) Del conducted bilateral discussions with Vietnam,
Indonesia, Trinidad and Tobago, Serbia and Montenegro, Togo,
Uganda, and Nigeria each of whom requested specific U.S.
implementation support to facilitate development of a
national authority and facilitate enactment of legislation.
Most requests were for assistance in educating government
ministries, industry and legislators as to the requirements
of the CWC, rather than drafting or other legal assistance.
Discussions surfaced a general theme of implementation
support needs for implementation information and guidance,
industry outreach seminar assistance and government personnel
training. Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and Cameroon also expressed
interest in assistance, but indicated that timing of such
assistance should follow enactment of legislation. Del
provided each representative with USG contacts for written
requests (State/National Authority - Sidler and CWDel member
- Williams) to initiate dialogue on implementation support
type, timing and intensity.
10. (U) At a sparsely-attended Nov. 7 meeting of the
"English-speaking" group, TS Policy Officer Trapp attempted
to solicit ideas as to what legal assistance could be
provided in the future by the CWC Legal Experts Network (LEN)
and through what mechanisms. In the absence of any reaction,
USDEL led off with its view:
-- (U) Having many of the actual legislative drafters present
was very useful in providing an accurate assessment of the
current state of affairs regarding implementing legislation
in the countries represented.
-- (U) The informal, experts nature of the meeting greatly
assisted the free flow of information and should be
continued. The establishment of points of contact for
legislation greatly improves communication and provides a
conduit for follow-on bilateral and TS action.
-- (U) USG CWC legal experts Seward and Pratt were available
to review draft legislation and regulations and discuss legal
issues, either directly or as part of submissions to the TS
Office of the Legal Adviser.
-- (U) The USG was prepared to entertain requests for other
forms of implementation assistance such as brochures
explaining the CWC to industry or conducting information
seminars. While USG CWC legal experts could not receive
official requests for resource, information or other
non-legal forms of assistance, they could provide information
on how to formally request assistance and would alert the USG
that specific countries were inquiring about assistance.
(Information on USG contacts for such requests -- CWDEL
member Williams and State/MA Sidler -- was subsequently
distributed.)
-- (U) The TS should set up a password-protected area for the
confidential exchange of information among experts. This
SIPDIS
forum should be the main focal point for coordination of the
LEN, augmented by annual meetings. The TS should also
solicit information for and post an informal quarterly update
of the progress countries were making in
drafting/passing/implementing their legislation and
regulations. This site should include copies of national
statements presented during the LEN meeting.
11. (U) There were few other responses. Sri Lanka liked the
idea of a quarterly report. Trinidad and Tobago asked for TS
assistance for the Caribbean regional group and stressed the
need for more interaction among the LEN participants,
specifically requesting establishment of a Commonwealth-based
review and coordination group for legislation.
12. (U) The TS (Trapp) indicated it would be setting up the
website for coordination, will consider annual meetings of
the LEN to monitor and encourage progress, and will solicit
other States Parties participation with a focus on linking
donors to recipients.
13. (U) Javits sends.
SOBEL

Metadata

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

Print

You can use this tool to generate a print-friendly PDF of the document 03THEHAGUE2939_a.

Include summaryInclude headersInclude raw metadata

Share

The formal reference of this document is 03THEHAGUE2939_a, please use it for anything written about this document. This will permit you and others to search for it.

Direct link to documentReddit codeHTML codeForum code (bbcode)

Submit this story

Help Expand The Public Library of US Diplomacy

Your role is important:
WikiLeaks maintains its robust independence through your contributions.